November 2008 - jboss-dev-forums - Jboss List Archives

[Design of EJB 3.0] - Re: jboss.entity.manager.factory.jndi.name

by dimitris＠jboss.org

Can you check if this is fixed in AS trunk? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4187439#4187439 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4187439

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Possible problem with bean-deployer_2_0.xsd

by adrian＠jboss.org

I don't read alienese and the error messages aren't very helpful. But I'd guess from this link (see the table) that you are not allowed to derive a choice from a choice except under very specific circumstances? http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#cos-particle-restrict If that's true, its kind of stupid since both choice groups are identical. ;-) But the obvious fix would be to not redefine the choice group and just specify it explicitly in bean-deployer-2.0.xsd. Its exactly the same definition so we aren't actually gaining anything from the redefine that I can see? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4187436#4187436 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4187436

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of POJO Server] - Re: VFS Permissions - JBMICROCONT-149

by anil.saldhana＠jboss.com

Scott, what needs to be done to get AS boot under a security manager. Any VFS related thing? https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBAS-4154 Or are we back to this discussion? http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&t=143631 View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4187432#4187432 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4187432

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Possible problem with bean-deployer_2_0.xsd

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

By the way, validating it (second-hand via my contact at JetBrains) with another tool produces marginally more useful output: SystemID: D:\LloydsXSD\bean-deployer_2_0.xsd | Location: 139:36 | Description: rcase-RecurseLax.2: There is not a complete functional mapping | between the particles. | URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#rcase-RecurseLax | | SystemID: D:\LloydsXSD\bean-deployer_2_0.xsd | Location: 139:36 | Description: src-redefine.6.2.2: Group 'valueGroup' does not properly | restrict the group it redefines; constraint violated: 'rcase-RecurseLax.2'. | URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#src-redefine | View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4187426#4187426 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4187426

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Possible problem with bean-deployer_2_0.xsd

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

IDEA does not like .xml files that use a namespace attached to the bean-deployer schema (since the extraction of the jboss-beans-common stuff into a separate file I suspect). And the IDEA folks say that it's an XSD problem, as other validation tools come to the same conclusion. The problem is that elements within top-level "bean" elements are all marked invalid. The errors reported are as follows: /home/david/src/java/microcontainer/trunk/kernel/src/main/resources/schema/bean-deployer_2_0.xsd | Error:Error:line (139)rcase-RecurseLax.2: There is not a complete functional mapping between the particles. | Error:Error:line (139)src-redefine.6.2.2: Group 'valueGroup' does not properly restrict the group it redefines; constraint violated: 'rcase-RecurseLax.2'. Note that the error location is in the XSD file, not the jboss-beans.xml file that I'm actually validating. Is this our problem or theirs? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4187421#4187421 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4187421

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-380; constructor (property) matching

by adrian＠jboss.org

"wolfc" wrote : Can we then have an exception if the parameter type is unspecified and there are multiple constructors to choose from? I know we used to issue a WARNing, because Scott asked me to add it. But I can't find it in the current code? Ales, did you remove it during one of your refactorings? :-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4187407#4187407 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4187407

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-380; constructor (property) matching

by wolfc

Can we then have an exception if the parameter type is unspecified and there are multiple constructors to choose from? View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4187395#4187395 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4187395

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: JBMICROCONT-380; constructor (property) matching

by adrian＠jboss.org

Like I said on the JIRA issue, its not possible in general. The only way to get close would be for the ValueMetaData to say that it doesn't need the type before you can get the value. Then you could invoke getValue(TypeInfo, ClassLoader) (with null for the TypeInfo) before you determine the constructor. But you'd still need to extend the fuzzy match processing to not only look at the exact type but also all the interfaces of the value returned. Even then you could still get an ambiguity, e.g. in the example on the JIRA issue if the injection implemented both Kernel and Controller. This particular issue would probably be better resolved if we just changed the BeanMetaDataDeployer to use @Inject for the controller so you don't have to specify it in the xml. The only reason all the different config mechanisms exist (constructors/setters) is supposedly for backwards compatiblity but the example from embedded shows that the ambiguous constructor breaks that anyway. ;-) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4187392#4187392 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4187392

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design of Messaging on JBoss (Messaging/JBoss)] - creating integration layer

by ataylor

Currently core needs the following dependencies to build: netty/mina jboss security Jboss Logging and log4j Micro Container I'm going to move all these implementations into an integration layer which will exist similar to the jms layer i.e. org.jboss.messaging.integration.remoting.impl.netty. I'll then change the build to create multiple jars: jboss-messaging.jar jbm-transports.jar jbm-security.jar jbm-logging.jar jbm-bootstrap.jar jbm-util.jar I'll also go through all the current third party jars to check we actually need them all. Does any body have any views/comments. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4187389#4187389 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4187389

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Declaration and deployment of threads and thread pools i

by david.lloyd＠jboss.com

I meant to say, "blocks on "poll"" not "offer". View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4187388#4187388 Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4187388

17 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-dev-forums November 2008